Civil War: Movie involves Tony Stark's parents.
Nobody remembers their names.
Batman V Superman: Movie involves their parents too.
Everybody now knows that their moms are called Martha.
Is this why DC will always be better than marvel? Because people remember details about DC characters while they barely give a shit about Marvel characters?
Other urls found in this thread:
>Is this why DC will always be better than marvel? Because people remember details about DC characters while they barely give a shit about Marvel characters?
Actually, no. The fact that people don't know shit about Marvel's characters is one of the reasons their movies are so successful.
Everybody knows about Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. Any slight deviation will be met with disappointment and anger. No one gives a fuck about Black Panther. They can do anything with his background in order to tell a better story and no one will raise a stink about it.
Look at Hawkeye. Do you see people complaining about him having a family and not being a deaf with major insecurity issues? No, everybody loves Daddyhawk.
Ive seen ppl whine about how ableist Marvel is for ignoring Hawkeye's deafness.
I'm pretty sure most people remember Howard Stark's dad being called Howard, since he's been in 3 Marvel movies so far, and people only remember Martha because it was so shit, and was said several times in the movie, just like "For you" in the Dark Knight Rises.
*Tony Stark's dad being called Howard
>BATMAN and SUPERMAN fight
>BATMAN beats SUPERMAN
>SUPERMAN: MY MOM'S NAME IS MARTHA
>LOUD MUSICAL STING
>BATMAN: MY MOM'S NAME IS MARTHA
>LOUD MUSICAL STING
actually what I really loved about this scene is that Batman never even questions whether the alien might have telepathy or whether his alien language might coincidentally include a word that sounds like Martha
world's greatest detective
Uncle Ben, Aunt May, Ma & Pa Kent, Thomas and Martha Wayne.
These are the only ones people will remember.
Howard Stark and Martha Stark
Uncle Ben and Aunt Martha
Who ordered a cappucino?
On the other hand, everyone knows what Peter Parker's parents are called.
Aside from Batman and Superman, can you name a single DC hero that the average person on the street will know the civilian identity of? I guarantee you they know all the core X-Men, Captain America, Iron Man, The Hulk, etc.
But most normalfags don't even know dudes like the Martian Manhunter even exist. At most, they might name Barry Allen or Oliver Queen, purely because they've had recent TV shows.
I feel like people at Marvel read the script for BvS and just decided to do the exact same film but less memorable. Even Zemo is almost identical to Lex, the way they both trick the heroes into fighting each other.
I'm pretty sure this is false flagging, because not even DC fans are this desperate.
You really overstate how much casuals know about Wonder Woman.
Hell I would agree most comic fans don't even know much about her
Howard Stark has been in literally 3 movies before this and TV show.
The only reason I personally remember Maria Stark's name is the Maria Stark Foundation being a thing in the comics.
...
Everybody just calls Superman's parents Ma and Pa Kent either way
You got that wrong OP.
Marvel movies are superior because they have coherent plot, better direction and acting, better fight scenes, characters that you care about and intelligent themes that are not overruled by christian and mythology themes.
thats really sad
The only thing DC has over marvel is more polygons and better lenses.
But that doesn't make for better cinematography, most of the time. Shit, the impressive shots in the Superman rescuing people work against the message of the scene itself!
If the cinematography doesn't match the message trying to be carried by the script, then it's shit cinematography, not good cinematography. Regardless of how impressive the forced perspective and muted colours seem on your screen.
I love you Sup Forums but you don't even try to sidestep the bait do you?
I wish there were comics testing the ship between T'challa and Steve and T'challa and Tony
This is a new level of denial.
I really don't expect Snyder apologists to know better than "if it looks good for a wallpaper then it's good cinematography".
How delusional you have to be to think that, DCuck? Pathetic.
Howard Stark was a character in his own right, outside of being Tony's dad. He helped create Captain America and flew the plane on the rescue mission, was part of the Agent Carter series, and has shown up in the Iron Man and Ant-Man movies. He played a part in the creation of SHIELD and is tied to many characters outside his son.
I don't even know daddy Wayne's name. I only know Martha because it's meme now. Bruce's parents are meaningless outside their deaths and fortune.
>Shit, the impressive shots in the Superman rescuing people work against the message of the scene itself!
That's wrong though, they work well in conjunction. The scenes start when all the media folk begin to ponder about Superman, reflecting their views with his acts.
The entire 'Martha' scene would have been immeasurably better if Bats had dropped the Batman voice while he was asking what Marta meant.
See here youtube.com
Everyone agrees that this is pretty the best scene of both DC movies, right? I agree. It works on a few levels, and even if I dislike the Space-dad exposition, it still carries on the hopefulness and feeling.
Now, I'm not gonna argue the angles and lenses and the VFX are bad. They're not, and are pretty much perfect.
But they are literally talking about letting in the sunlight and warmth, and they use a blue filter. This is meant to be triump and discovery, but they never show warms. They even go to the savannah and it still doesn't look vibrant. This ruins the cinematography. The scene is good, yes, but it's good DESPITE the cinematographic choices (some of them), not because of them.
If they wanted cold and Superman to pop out, they should have used a different filter for it, that let the red and blue pop from the cold background.
They always feel like Superman is doing it as a burden, like he doesn't enjoy doing it and just wants to go back to his apartment.
The ship-pulling makes him look like he is dragging a cross, ffs. The one where he's flying above a flood have the humans stretching to reach him, and he's floating above, just to get the shot. He should be helping. Shit, in this situation, Superman should be the one reaching, not observing. You can use the same shot with a different character to imply that he cause the flood.
And yes, context IS important, and it is why you know he didn't, but there's no point in making it look like it either. Everything about Superman should be unambiguous. Not because the character can't be explored, but because there's a reason Superman is famous and liked, and there's a reason people read the comics. The comics are the place for R&D, character-wise. The movies should be taking advantage of it and putting the best iterations of the characters on screen.
There's a reason most MCU heroes are better than their comic counterparts.
Howard confirmed for putting his brain in a duck before he died
Well said
Queen Martha of Themyscira
>The ship-pulling makes him look like he is dragging a cross, ffs. The one where he's flying above a flood have the humans stretching to reach him, and he's floating above, just to get the shot. He should be helping. Shit, in this situation, Superman should be the one reaching, not observing. You can use the same shot with a different character to imply that he cause the flood.
Those scenes were shot that way because of the narration. They compliment the narration. Is meant to show Superman in the same light the media people is talking about him, leaving you to ponder about it if they're right or not.
You spoke about the cinematography working with the message, so why are you now ignoring it?
The movie had too many nightmare sequences to still need to misrepresent the characters for the sake of pretty imagery on a montage.
Marvel movies are superior because ass and 11/10 bodies.
DC is basically encouraging aneroxia. Please stop.
Just because they tell you why they are doing it doesn't make it a good decision. They were the ones to make that choice of having the narration, they weren't forced to do it. Write a better script that doesn't need shine Superman in a non-superman light. It's the same argument that said that Superman couldn't drag Zod outside of Metropolis. Why not? Zod's not writing the script. Write their fight to happen outside of Metropolis and Superman stopping Zod from coming in at all costs. Why write yourself into a corner and then complain about it?
Plus, you never see Superman being liked or respected for saving someone. You can't have superman be doubted and hated without the contrast of everyone loving him before. Then you're not exploring the dynamic shift, you're exploring a new character.
And all of that could've worked, if they had showed pic something like pic related beforehand.
Superman can't feel like your dad that's overworked and comes home and is looking slightly disappointed and exhausted to have to help you with homework. He SHOULD be the guy that does it with a smile on his face, and then goes tired to work instead. It's not a balance act like Spider-man. Superman knows his priorities, and should enter a room with a smile and put smiles on peoples faces.
Also, you're wasting the Superman name on a mopey doubtful and detached personality, and you should just call him Dr. Manhattan or something, instead. There's a responsibility to the director with these characters. To be fair, there's no such responsibility to Marvel with theirs because they are all B-listers, but such is life.
There's a better Superman movie out already and it's the Disney Animation Hercules. It worked great then, why wouldn't it now? Snyder is underestimating the power of Superman as a simple character as a solid foundation to build complex stories around, without losing sight of north.
The nightmares were all from Bruce to showcase his instability and build for the "Matha" scene.
>Just because they tell you why they are doing it doesn't make it a good decision.
I thought they were good scenes that fitted nicely with the media-talk and expanded more about how the people dealt with Superman.
>Write a better script that doesn't need shine Superman in a non-superman light.
What is even your argument? You were talking about cinematography and scenes fitting its message and now you're going into a "NOT MUH" rant.
>Plus, you never see Superman being liked or respected for saving someone. You can't have superman be doubted and hated without the contrast of everyone loving him before. Then you're not exploring the dynamic shift, you're exploring a new character.
The scene was precisely about that.
>Superman can't feel like your dad that's overworked and comes home and is looking slightly disappointed and exhausted to have to help you with homework.
Take in the context of the movie, not your fanfiction.
>Also, you're wasting the Superman name on a mopey doubtful and detached personality
Take in the context of the movie! Superman smiled a lot and seemed relaxed during the earlier part of first half, but as he grew frustrated with his work, Batman and the media/people persecuting he started to become more apprehensive and sad, WHICH IS FITTING! He can't only show one emotion!
I feel like i'm constantly talking with people that didn't watched the movie, but feel that they've the moral obligation to sway opinions telling everything that is wrong with it and taking everything out of context.
Autists like you are the blight of DC fandom
Howard and Maria.
Fox meanwhile wants everyone to have a good time.
>Autists like you are the blight of DC fandom
To be fair though, it's the kind of audience the industry fosters and appeals to.
They had the best super hero movie of this year really
Okay, I see what you mean with me saying "not muh". Fair enough.
But for the record, I think that BvS fails as a movie, mostly because of the nonsensical plot surrounding Lex and the unlikable characters that keep jumping between smart as fuck and dumb as shit as the plot deems it convenient.
Stuff like the bullet, and the wheelchair, and the signed checks, and the dream sequences and everything like that not making sense. MoS didn't fail as a movie like that, except for Lois teleporting around, but that's neither here nor there. These plot imperfections makes me hate the movie on its own right. It's why I hate the movie.
What they both fail, in addition to that, is that, regardless of their qualities as movies on their own, they are shit Superman stories, which is what I'm arguing for. They are written in a way that don't take advantage of the characters or why they became popular enough to make a movie in the first place.
I'm not saying that they should be like the comics because they were adapted from them. I'm saying they should be like the comics because there's a reason why the comics are liked, and that reason should be easy to grasp and replicate in a movie. The fact that they are giving us what basically is OC personalities with the names plastered over it.
Everything you say about context is bullshit because of this. THEY WROTE THEIR OWN CONTEXT, hiding behind it is not an excuse for a shitty incarnation of superman.
>He can't only show one emotion!
But that's exactly what he does. For fucks sake, I'm not saying he needs to be happy all the time. He needs to be happy most of the time, so that when he's not, you can feel it. What's so hard to grasp? He constantly has the Larry David expression on his face and never fucking smiles. Being sad all the time is not the same thing as being mature, or elevated art. That coupled with the terribly dour cinematography brings the whole movie down, like I'm watching an evanescence song put to screen.
Deadpool is not very representative of the FOX-men movies though. It felt a lot like an R-rated MCU movie in its approach to the source material, to be fair.
>Stuff like the bullet, and the wheelchair, and the signed checks, and the dream sequences and everything like that not making sense.
I'm sorry, but they did. They really did.
The army was arming the rebels in that fictitious African country with the help of Lex Luthor, which is why Secretary of Defense Swanwick couldn't help Lois. So Lex knew he could murder the shit out of the rebels and blame Superman for it that nobody would be able to do shit.
Wallace Keefer, the wheelchair dude, and signed checks were used mostly to push Bruce forward into fight Superman, something he was already going to do, but Lex just wanted to have control of the situation.
The nightmare sequences were to show just how paranoid and fucked up Batman had become. There were also the pills and the mention of his armor being reinforced to showcase his paranoid and fucked up side. His dreams of the past and his musings about legacy showed that he was thinking a lot about his family and the failure he had become. The dreams also helped to set up the "MARTHA" moment.
>they are shit Superman stories
I disagree.
>I'm not saying that they should be like the comics because they were adapted from them
But they're, mostly. At least Superman isn't that different.
Here's the thing that piss me off a bit about all this discussion about DCEU Supes: people disregard that Supes in the comics isn't like your idealized dream of you dad all the time. He has his moments of moping, of anger, of paranoia, of fuck-ups. But for some reason people that complain about DCEU Supes disregard theses moments and only keep posting isolated pages of key issues that fit their narrative to show the most happy and compassionate moments of Superman to criticize the movie version.
It seems to me that people want the most perfect version of Superman that exist only in their minds in movie form so that they can evangelize everyone on the Gospel of Superman.
>But that's exactly what he does. For fucks sake
False.
>He needs to be happy most of the time, so that when he's not, you can feel it
And when that moment will come? Never? Because Superman only looked troubled and sad in this movie when appropriate.
>Being sad all the time is not the same thing as being mature, or elevated art. That coupled with the terribly dour cinematography brings the whole movie down, like I'm watching an evanescence song put to screen.
But he isn't sad all the time. Not at all.
It was a joke. Angel Dust and NTW have very different body types.
>The army was arming the rebels in that fictitious African country with the help of Lex Luthor, which is why Secretary of Defense Swanwick couldn't help Lois. So Lex knew he could murder the shit out of the rebels and blame Superman for it that nobody would be able to do shit.
Lex Luthor arms his mercenaries with bullets only his company uniquely manufactures.
It's the kind of thing the Riddler would do because Nygma like to sign his crimes and be known for them, but not the kind of thing a supposedly genius mastermind like Lex Luthor would.
It's a contrived means for Lois to track down Luthor, and it amounts to nothing in the actual story.
Bitch, please.
Everybody knows Howard Stark. Maybe not as many people know Maria, but Howard's been in four movies and a netflix series.
>Captain America: The First Avenger
>Iron Man 2
>Ant-Man
>Civil War
>Agent Carter
It shows that Lex had backing from higher up and that he likes to flaunt his superiority. I mean, Lois didn't had any source and couldn't really do anything. It's there to show the plot and show that Lex was untouchable and planned for everything.
I don't get this "Marvel movies are forgettable" meme. I remember the characters, plot and several scenes from TWS and Iron Man. The only ones i completely forgot about are Thor 2 and TIH.
And i remember people asking "Who is Zod?" and "what did Superman did?" when watching BvS, as if they don't know there was a Supes movie before this.
And all the people on the marvel side were received better
to normies this year
Cap>Superman
Iron Man > Batman
Black Panther > Wonder Woman
>Jeer at fans about how unrecognizable the characters are
>Insist it's a movie for the fans and Snyder loves the source material
>Be completely confuddled at why casuals find it disappointing.
Snyderfags are made of cognitive dissonance.
Oh. And Howard and Maria Stark.
You're misunderstanding me.
It's not that it isn't explained in the movie. It's way more fundamental than that, it doesn't make sense that they are in the movie at all, when there's so many other ways the same thing could be carried with a lot more emotional punch and without least bit of the audience having to piece it together. You have to question the decisions and not just accept them. They are stupid decisions they make that they spend the whole first 2/3rds of the movie trying to write themselves out of.
I wasn't joking about Hercules, it is a much better superman movie. He's happy go lucky all the time, and his drive to be superman comes from within, with some direction from his earth-dad. Not from his space-dad telling him that's what he was meant to do. In two movies, Supes has tried escaping being superman twice already by isolating himself. He should be trying to be closer to people, but that never happens on-screen. That pays off so much more where in the end he gives it all up for Meg at the river Styx. There's tension and relief. You're arguing me like he has both, when he doesn't. It's only tension the whole way through, culminating in his death, that could've been avoided by giving the spear to the medieval-inspired hero fighting next to him, making it a stupid moment.
When was Superman happy about being Superman? Besides the very end of MoS, you only have the bathtub scene, and he's just happy about being Clark. He has no joy in being Superman. They are banking on a lot of contrast that just isn't there. He has 40 lines, and half of those are meaningless dialogue yeses and nos. He only states his mind once, and it's about how not everything can be good. Without ever it being good in the first place. He doesn't even talk with Wonder Woman.
And the cinematography, which is where we've started this argument, is only helping exacerbating the already miserable life of Superman.
it's spelled "capekino"
It's shown that the voice is a result of a microphone masking his voice.
user, you didn't actually think that Batman was just making the growly voice himself, did you? That would be ridiculous.
>Here's the thing that piss me off a bit about all this discussion about DCEU Supes: people disregard that Supes in the comics isn't like your idealized dream of you dad all the time. He has his moments of moping, of anger, of paranoia, of fuck-ups. But for some reason people that complain about DCEU Supes disregard theses moments and only keep posting isolated pages of key issues that fit their narrative to show the most happy and compassionate moments of Superman to criticize the movie version.
Bro, stuff like Superman's first flight in MoS or the bath tub scene in BvS are like an oasis in a desert of morose, morbid, languishing pain for DCEU Superman.
Snyder's Superman mostly comes across as stoic and single-minded, without any greater goal or motivation to be productive in the world. He's reactive, he's conflicted, he's there to save lives and not much else. For all the talk of realism, his Superman is notably passive.
>that he likes to flaunt his superiority.
Why would Lex flaunt at all during a convert plot to frame Superman? Isn't knowingly inviting discovery what an idiot would do?
>Lex was untouchable and planned for everything.
No, it's a narrative dead end that makes Lex look like an idiot and Lois ineffective.
>And i remember people asking "Who is Zod?" and "what did Superman did?" when watching BvS, as if they don't know there was a Supes movie before this.
A massive number of people saw TDK without knowing it was a sequel to BB.
> Howard Stark has been in literally 3 movies before this and TV show.
Which, by the way, made that footage scene with Bucky all the more painful to watch.
Like, I knew that Howard Stark was dead in the modern timeline. But this was just just some random character, we have history with Howard Stark. His death was brutal, and his confusion as to why this was even happening made it all the worse.
I don't give even half as much a shit about Batman's parents, in ANY of their movie appearances, as I did about the death of Howard Stark.
Yes, you're absolutely right. DC is much better. Not because they make better movies, because their movies are more successful, but because people remember names.
This thread has not been bait at all, clearly.
At this point MCU is inherently better than DCCU simply because there is a cinematic universe to speak of.
DCCU should be judged when there will be non Zack Snyder movies (aka, real movies), because fuck those, I'll consider them not canon. Would you really want to taint Bataffleck's wild ride with Snyder?
>Why would Lex flaunt at all during a convert plot to frame Superman?
Because nobody would be able to do a thing, like with the jar of piss.
>But for some reason people that complain about DCEU Supes disregard theses moments
Because that's what they are. Moments. The overall aggregate is still very different.
> But for some reason people that complain about DCEU Supes disregard theses moments and only keep posting isolated pages of key issues that fit their narrative to show the most happy and compassionate moments of Superman to criticize the movie version.
Literally untrue given that one of those pages is a collection that shows Clark getting angry and failing and being sad, but then ignoring reality is necessary for your narrative.
And absolutely nothing is stopping you from posting comics that support this view of Superman but whenever anyone calls you guys to task about this you pull that bullshit tumblrina "it's not my job to educate you" bullshit and just insist the comics are out there somewhere and dodge the question entirely.
It's pretty damn obvious that the reason you do this is because if you actually had to post the comics or anything other than kinography memes it'd be too readily apparent that the context provided reveals you have no leg to stand on.
>It seems to me that people want the most perfect version of Superman that exist only in their minds in movie form so that they can evangelize everyone on the Gospel of Superman.
And that's totally 100% different from what you're doing.
>A massive number of people saw TDK without knowing it was a sequel to BB.
I don't believe you, but I honor the sincerity of your convictions.
>Lex was untouchable and planned for everything.
Lois tracked him down with ease and he ends up in jail.
For Lex to be as brilliant as you're claiming he wouldn't get caught. Or if he did get caught, he'd get released almost immediately.
Superman was passive and reactive during the first half of Man of Steel and after that he started calling the shots. In BvS he wasn't passive and reactive at all, or else he'd be stuck covering that football game.
And he smiled a lot in BvS. He looked sad and worried whenever he got the news about people talking bad about him, frustrated and angry whenever he discussed with Perry, heart-broken and unsure after the bombing and conflicted and disgusted when he was forced to fight Batman. Every other time he was either serious or smiling.
No one complained about Bucky either.
This is actually a great opportunity though. Since normies barely know anything about WW, the movie might be successful just by making her look cool. Also I'm watching it for Steve Trevor's outfit. It looks awesome.
Really makes you think.
But when it happened in Iron Man II it was fun, when it happened in BvS was pathetic and ridiculous.
>Because nobody would be able to do a thing, like with the jar of piss
How did Lex know Superman wouldn't kill him in retaliation?
How did Lex know Superman wouldn't publicly mention the forensic data of the bullets?
Why did the CIA have an operative there if the military was backing Lex to frame Superman?
Why didn't the military monitor Lex's activities?
>Superman was passive and reactive during the first half of Man of Steel and after that he started calling the shots.
In what sense?
> In BvS he wasn't passive and reactive at all, or else he'd be stuck covering that football game.
Nah he's still pretty reactionary, but unlike that other user I kind of think that's largely okay because a proactive Superman is pretty much always a dictator. Having said that, there are ways to frame that passivity as a good thing and Snyder doesn't do that because he's too concerned with the whole "sad because jesus" shit.
Also I don't understand why Clark was even covering football games in the first place. The Daily Planet has a sports writer. He's the balding guy we saw last movie. That guy didn't die.
He ends up in jail for Doomsday, not the massacre in the African country.
>How did Lex know Superman wouldn't kill him in retaliation?
Because he had his mom.
>How did Lex know Superman wouldn't publicly mention the forensic data of the bullets?
Because he would be dead by them and the Secretary of Defense didn't wanted to be cited as source or for Lois to keep investigating.
>Why did the CIA have an operative there if the military was backing Lex to frame Superman?
Because it was a shady shit, like intervening in a political crisis that the country proclaimed neutrality.
>Why didn't the military monitor Lex's activities?
Because he had backing.
>Also I don't understand why Clark was even covering football games in the first place. The Daily Planet has a sports writer. He's the balding guy we saw last movie. That guy didn't die.
Because any scenes with Clark would take away from Snyder's precious Lex and Batman scenes.
Thank God we had nine scenes of Alfred having the same conversation with Bruce though, those were super-essential.
>In what sense?
In working with the military in stopping Zod.
>Nah he's still pretty reactionary
He set out to investigate more about Batman, abandoning his own investigation about the African actress paid by Lex to frame him, because he felt that what Batman did wasn't right and someone should do something about it.
>Also I don't understand why Clark was even covering football games in the first place.
He's probably a stringer, still, like he was introduced at the end of MoS.
>Superman was passive and reactive during the first half of Man of Steel and after that he started calling the shots.
Yes, he sure made the choice to ignore the annihilated Metropolis and join the Daily Planet's staff with no journalistic credentials whatsoever.
He sure chose to crash a military drone that cost millions of dollars instead of disabling it.
Calling shots like an asshole.
>In BvS he wasn't passive and reactive at all, or else he'd be stuck covering that football game.
>And he smiled a lot in BvS. He looked sad and worried whenever he got the news about people talking bad about him, frustrated and angry whenever he discussed with Perry, heart-broken and unsure after the bombing and conflicted and disgusted when he was forced to fight Batman. Every other time he was either serious or smiling.
Most of what you're describing were sad scenes with a conflicted Superman.When Superman saves people in BvS, it comes across as a chore, and he so mindlessly saves people without regards to other consequences it comes across as imbecilic.
He never actually states anything to the world other than dying for them by killing Doomsday. Perhaps that's poetic, but if he literally just had a conversation to anyone with a camera phone he could have wiped a great deal of ambiguity away about how the world perceived him.
Contrived storytelling becomes melodramatic.
the ironic thing is Martha now become a meme
It would break the immersion and seem like a cop-out. They're trying to be realistic, so how would Superman be able to keep Zod out of the city without it seeming forced? Why would everyone love Superman despite the destruction?
>Plus, you never see Superman being liked or respected for saving someone.
But you do. Half of the people outside of the Capitol were for Superman. They were even chanting his name. It was always a balance of people who liked and disliked him. You have to watch the movie again.
>Because that's what they are. Moments. The overall aggregate is still very different.
He spends more time being a hero and fighting in the comics than smiling at people and helping little kids. Those times when he's being the perfect Superman are the down-times between the action which are few and far in-between. Most of the time the comics focus on the plot.
And why will i save a bunch of images with Superman being angry, conflicted or sad just to prove stuffs to a bunch of stranger that with a passion a movie that i just found OK?
>And that's totally 100% different from what you're doing.
Yes, because i don't want to convince people into loving or hating a character or a movie, i'm just debating people's criticism of a movie.
>Because he had his mom.
I meant after the African plot. Lois literally just had to reveal to Clark that Lex conspired to frame him. Snicker-snap, dead Lex.
>Because he would be dead by them
No he wouldn't.
>and the Secretary of Defense didn't wanted to be cited as source or for Lois to keep investigating.
"I Superman, publicly accuse Luthor of using science bullets to kill people, I welcome an investigation of him. Also here is one of the bullets."
>Because it was a shady shit, like intervening in a political crisis that the country proclaimed neutrality.
Fine, whatever.
>He never actually states anything to the world other than dying for them by killing Doomsday. Perhaps that's poetic, but if he literally just had a conversation to anyone with a camera phone he could have wiped a great deal of ambiguity away about how the world perceived him.
Here's what's going to happen. A Snyderfag will claim that it wouldn't matter anyway because people would still treat him like a god. Then you'll say that's not the point; that kind of ambivalence and lack of trying is what makes Clark passive and characterizes him poorly. When that happens, don't make any other point in that post, because the characterization issue will be ignored so they can move the goalpost and attack the other one. I want to be able to see how it gets no replies short of "you just don't get it".
Normal people only started to dislike Superman after the capitol bombing, because of how the media portrayed the whole thing and because nobody understood why Superman fucked off.
Sure, he thought by stopping Superman he would keep people safer and was clearly distressed, but that fucked things up majorly.
Before that normal people treated Superman with reverence and love. Sometimes too much reverence and love.
>He spends more time being a hero and fighting in the comics than smiling at people and helping little kids.
Prove it. There is more to Superman than being a strong guy that punches hard.
>Those times when he's being the perfect Superman are the down-times between the action which are few and far in-between. Most of the time the comics focus on the plot.
Again, really easy way to back up this claim that you seem to be against taking.
>And why will i save a bunch of images with Superman being angry, conflicted or sad just to prove stuffs to a bunch of stranger that with a passion a movie that i just found OK?
Right. So you've got nothing. But we should take your word on faith alone as you spread your gospel about based god zak snyder.
All he needed was like 10 seconds to talk to a person with a camera.
Perhaps a spunky gal reporter he trusts...
>Before that normal people treated Superman with reverence and love. Sometimes too much reverence and love.
You know what a good director wouldv'e done? Less jesus, more rock star. Have women ripping their tops off around him and him seeing his face everywhere. Superman as celebrity can have just as much of a negative impact on his personality as Superman as religious icon and it's not nearly as pretentious or overdone. It's also more identifiable because the vast majority of people won't be regarded as gods but they may be able to acquire some level of popularity and/or fame and have to deal with processing it.
Or himself.
Clark Kent is the only reporter in the world that doesn't seem to understand public relations or how to spin a narrative.
>Yes, he sure made the choice to ignore the annihilated Metropolis and join the Daily Planet's staff with no journalistic credentials whatsoever.
We aren't shown if he helped afterwards or not, because the jumped into a time-skip. That's your assumption.
>He sure chose to crash a military drone that cost millions of dollars instead of disabling it.
That was after the whole and he crashed to maintain his identity and security, asking the at the time general to trust and not spy him.
>Most of what you're describing were sad scenes with a conflicted Superman.
No, those scenes were exactly like i said. I'm sorry if you can't recognize emotions.
>When Superman saves people in BvS, it comes across as a chore
He smiled when he saved the Mexican girl and only looked trouble when people ganged up on him to touch him like as if he was a religious figure, which fit with the narration. For example when a guy said that all actions in this Earth is political we see Superman catching a Russian silo.
>but if he literally just had a conversation to anyone with a camera phone he could have wiped a great deal of ambiguity away about how the world perceived him.
I agree. Finally.
they've made unfamiliar superheroes like Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Ant-Man and Black Panther to be recognized by general public. I think it was their greatest achievement.
Well, Bruce Wayne alluded that the Daily Planet always released a puff piece editorial praising Superman, so i don't know if that would work.
Superman was regarded as a god by few, mostly media people when discussing his powers and what he could do and what that meant for us, though. And the Mexicans, of course.
Or maybe allusions aren't enough.
>because the jumped into a time-skip.
What, a day? A week? A month? Metropolis would have taken years to rebuild.
>That's your assumption.
No, it's yours. The ending is tone-deaf.
Sure, but what would it change in-universe? It would be a pointless scene just to make the fans happy.
>We aren't shown if he helped afterwards or not, because the jumped into a time-skip. That's your assumption.
Because they jumped into a timeskip, that's what we have. It's your assumption that Clark went back to school and got a journalism degree and/or helped rebuild after the destruction.
It's fucking amazing how you guys keep going "just watch the movie!" like a mantra and then insist we fill in the gaps with stuff that's not in it.
My problem is there's no amount of joy anyone has
Superman is supposed to bring in hope among others and when he's being a hero, he looks like he's gonna cry
It makes Clark seem like he's actually tried to get his story out there instead of being a pussy with emotional dependency and whining about it every day after work?
It'd make the perception look less one sided?
It'd make Batman look more deranged and myopic?
It'd support the purported ideological conflict that ended up being an aborted arc?
And by the way what the fuck is wrong with making the fans happy? Half the time you assholes are claiming this was a movie FOR the fans.
Are we discussing MoS or BvS? Yes, MoS had a time-skip in the end, so we can't say for sure if Superman helped in the cleaning, if he helped in the rebuilding and if he went to school to get a journalism degree or if he has one.
>Metropolis would have taken years to rebuild.
The destruction was so big, just a section of the city, and they turned into a park.
>On the other hand, everyone knows what Peter Parker's parents are called.
No. They know about Aunt May and Uncle Ben, but not as well as people know, lets say, Lois Lane, Alfre or other side characters and now Martha
>Howard Stark has been in literally 3 movies before this and TV show.
And people still say ''Iron Man's'' dad.
Clark couldn't even do a story about Batman, he wouldn't be able to do a story about Superman. We see in the movie Perry pushing a Superman into someone's else lap.
But you're right about the rest. I agree.
Richard and Mary Parker.
Thanks to the ASM movies.
Memes and arguments aside though, thakns to WB's poor handling of their properties within this decade we're likely going to see Cap and Iron Man take Superman and Batman's places at the top of the public consciousness. Assuming we're not there already.